“I don't doubt that many people do, in fact, have A.D.H.D.; I regularly diagnose and treat it in adults. But what if a substantial proportion of cases are really sleep orders in disguise?”

Don't get me wrong. I am fascinated by how much more we know about the brain's influence over our behaviors. Recently, I did an interview with Dr. Sandra Bond Chapman of the Center of BrainHealth at University of Texas at Dallas. She talked about how the brain's development affects early learning. You can read more about her thoughts at this link.

Still, I have wondered whether the science of brain chemistry has risen to such a place that we may overlook other reasons for behavior. That includes whether the old-fashioned notion of sin could perhaps also explain the actions people take. Could it be that man's rebellion against God is driving people to act the way they do as much as any influence their brain has on their actions?

We can never quantify the reasons for actions, but I would like to hear your thoughts about this issue:

Are we relying too much on the science of the brain to explain human behaviors?

MATTHEW WILSON, Associate Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University

One of the most morally corrosive tendencies of our age is our apparent need to give every character failing and sinful tendency a clinical name. By offering a diagnosis of illness, we conveniently and reassuringly remove any element of personal accountability.

Of course, this is not entirely new — from Adam's attempt to blame Eve for his transgression (and Eve's to blame the serpent), to later ideas of “predestination,” to the current fad of biological determinism, human beings seem perennially tempted to undermine the notion of free will and thereby to mitigate or evade moral responsibility for our actions.

Especially when dealing with our children, this temptation is very strong. None of us wants to admit that our child's poor performance in school, or problematic behavior, stems from any failing or deficiency on his part (or ours). Perish the thought that he might simply be intellectually below average, or academically undisciplined, or lacking in impulse control or concern for others. He must have a neurological condition! He's not just a mean kid who should be held accountable for his behavior; he has “conduct disorder” (sadly, an actual clinical diagnosis).

Once we have pathologized sin in this way, it is no one's fault; you could no more blame a person with such a disorder for his misbehavior than blame a blind person for his inability to read. It is much easier to embrace a diagnosis of mental disease, with its attendant pharmacological solutions, than to do the slow, laborious, challenging work of building character and moral sense over time, either in ourselves or in our children.

None of this is to suggest that genuine mental illness doesn't exist, and that it can't under certain circumstances mitigate moral culpability. Catholic teaching is clear on this score. The Church is equally clear, however, in maintaining that people are generally morally responsible for their choices and actions. To the extent that an overemphasis on the brain, and a tendency to proliferate “disorders” and “syndromes,” obscures this, it dulls our perception of the true moral roots of human behavior.

We overlook a myriad of influences that impact our behavior in our deluded love affair with the primacy of free will. For instance, the brain is not the sole repository of mind. Our gastrointestinal system is lined with neurological cells. A “gut feeling” is literally a gut feeling. Our sinuses and GI tract are rife with mast cells that when provoked release hormones and neurotransmitters such as histamine, which in large amounts can cause sexual aggression, and serotonin, which excessive amounts can calm to the point of inertia.

Humans are not a body that totes along a brain that is in charge. We are an intricate mind-body system. A depression I suffered for over a year dissipated when an incredibly low level of vitamin D was brought back to normal. Or consider the “angry drunk” phenomenon caused by liver damage. Chronic stress can cause cortisol levels to rise which leads to deep anxiety.

We must start thinking holistically about the mind, body and behavior, with consideration of emotions, environment and diet taking full part. Ours is a symbiotic world.

KERI DAY, Assistant Professor of Theological and Social Ethics and Director of Black Church Studies, Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University

I often wonder what is lost when the epidemic of children or adults “acting out” is ascribed to “brain or chemical issues” as opposed to social and cultural
problems. To be certain, it is very important for our society to embrace a particular perspective that acknowledges that mental illness (chemical reactions in the brain) may cause children and adults to have erratic and even dangerous behavior. Some people are mentally ill, and mental illness continues to be a misunderstood and repressed issue within our national dialogue.

However, cultural and social forces certainly contribute to behavioral problems around this nation. It is quite known within psychological studies that helplessness, nihilism, and rabid individualism adversely shape the personality and moral formation of children and youth. Such cultural and social factors give rise to behavioral problems that cannot merely be reduced to “brain differences” or “chemical problems.”

Instead, when persons bomb places or go on killing sprees, we must be willing to have conversations surrounding socio-cultural problems such as the glorification of violence and the commodification of human beings, which are leading to the complete devaluing of human life here in the United States. In theological terms, one might call this a conversation about sin.

I am probably more on the hesitant side when speaking of sin, as this term has been used as a tool to historically exploit and dominate. So then, by speaking of “sin,” I do not mean this term in a religiously fundamentalist way (condemning people to “hell” based on their gender or sexual preference for example). Instead, I understand sin to mean an offense or violation of what it means for us to be human.

We are human when we are able and willing to give, share, and receive love, for God is love. When violations break this bond of community expressed through respect, mutuality, and reciprocity (what I would define as love), we have missed the mark. And many of our social and cultural institutions today are partly responsible for how individuals behave and how they miss the mark, violating themselves and entire communities.

So it seems to me that although an emphasis on social and cultural institutions (also construed in theological terms as “sin”) may not be the politically correct
conversation to have, we are in desperate need of this conversation if we are to nurture the ties that bind us together as human beings. This is hard and complex
work but it must be done if we are to be a morally healthy society.

I found the suggestion that sinful behavior results from humankind’s rebellion against God quite extraordinary if not downright medieval. What’s next, trial by ordeal?

As advances in the “hard” sciences reveal the physical, chemical, biologic, and genetic sources of our behavior, less room is left for the “devil made me do it” etiology. Those advances and the conclusions they generate take us farther from the age of faith of the middle ages and the superstitious folklore that was a given in those bygone centuries.

On the other hand, faith still plays a role in the education and elevation of every new born babe as we try to raise them to be socially acceptable members of civilization. The principles of our respective faiths are part of an education that we must recognize as necessary as we contend with the 3 million year old chemistry and genetics that drive our behavior. As every parent knows, it’s sometimes an uphill battle.

TIMOTHY HEINES, Pastor, St. Joseph Catholic Church, Richardson

I am not so sure that overemphasizing the brain is really at issue regarding the diagnosis of children. When I taught high school a few years ago, I was amazed at the number of parents who just did not want to admit it when their child had problems or even if their child was — heaven forbid — average! If a child struggled it was always the fault of someone or something — and brain chemistry is the latest bugbear that can be blamed.

Maybe sleep deprivation is an issue. Based on my experience, it certainly makes sense. But I would hate for us to just shift from one diagnosis du jour to another without having the courage to admit that the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars.

It seems to me that underlying a great deal of blaming is a fundamental denial of the reality that we are fallen beings, broken and in need of healing. When we can admit that of ourselves and of our children, then we might be on the way to building a more loving (or at least understanding) society.

To treat humans as if they are simply a conglomeration of chemical reactions is to exchange how a mechanism works for what drives it.

I was diagnosed as A.D.H.D in the sixties when it was hardly known and as a child I slept well. I am sure the way I am built can be mapped chemically and that is why I was a child who took medicine to help control my body and its reactions.

But how I reacted to my condition and how I learned to cope with it with my parents support is about far more than chemicals. I can explain how the gasoline that allows a car to run works, but that is different than discussing the driver who directs the car.

Whatever our soul is, it is far more and gives humans far more worth than simply describing us in terms of a chem chart. The danger here is we deflect responsibility. Now it is not the devil that made me do it, but my chemical makeup. Something else causes the choice. When we fail to allow ourselves to have responsibility for what we do, we never grow or face up to our responsibilities in life. Let the science help us, but do not let it replace the soul.

A friend of mine has a sleep disorder. When her “sleep machine” (used at night) is working properly, she is one of the sharpest, most empathic conversation partners I know. But when something is “off,” with her sleep routine, I can immediately tell. Conversations with her drag. Her personality seems altered. Concentration and memory, patience and good will, all suffer a significant loss.

Kids, like the rest of us, don't get enough sleep. One short night might leave them tired, but night after night of getting 1-3 hours less than they should (some studies say a 9-year old should get 10 or 11 hours every night) is bound to take a significant toll on concentration, personality, and behavior.

Sin is certainly an under-considered category, particularly in reference to ourselves. We might readily apply it to terrorists, but should it be invoked in relation to our own behaviors? Of course it should. And it should be named (confessed) not merely as a way of explaining unacceptable behaviors, but also as the first step toward healing, wholeness, restoration.

“Confession is good for the soul” as they say. In Christian traditions, there is the practice of confessing sin, being forgiven, and changing. To name and repent of sin is to escape being bogged down by it.

I would like to see us reflect on brain studies and on sin in tandem. In order to do this effectively, we might need to “update” our understanding of sin, a bit, from a theological perspective. Sin does not always entail malicious intentions. It is a way of naming our brokenness – our tired grumpiness and inadvertent rudeness as well as our calculated missteps.

When “sin” is understood more broadly as brokenness, the study of the brain (including, for example, sleep disorders) might be seen – in part – as a path to confession. As magnificent as it is under that skull, there is also a heck of a lot that goes wrong. Brokenness abounds. Brain scientist Sandra Bond Chapman might be thought of as a kind of minister, working to mend it.

RIC DEXTER, Nichiren Buddhist area leader, Soka Gakkai-USA

There have been some wonderful advances in the study of human brain development. We have learned a lot about the question of how the thing works, but Dr. Chapman tells us clearly when the question is why it works that way “We just don't know.” Still the tendency to extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data leads us to think science has provided an answer.

Buddhism teaches of the nine levels of consciousness, or discernment. What scientific study of the workings of the mind can learn is encompassed within the first six. The seventh level includes the ability to discern between good and evil. That still leaves open the question of what we do and why we do it.

In each life moment, an infinitesimally short span of time, we have a number of choices. We often see those choices as either A or B, sometimes C. Buddhism teaches us that there are closer to 3000 options. You make these decisions according to your central life tendency, from the agony of suffering to the wisdom of our enlightened nature. This is within the eighth consciousness.

That is all interesting theoretically but what does it mean? We all have ways in which we habitually act. How we got there is a result of all of our experience. Suppose you are where stolen money just seems to rain down from the sky. In a condition of true suffering you might just ignore it. If it is greed you probably grab all you can and run. If it is compassion you may gather all you can and return it. Suppose you are a student in a class with a disruptive classmate. You may, in a condition of animality simply cower and hope it goes away, or in one of arrogance you may join or challenge the disruptive one, either one exacerbating the problem. With an enlightened mind you may address the problem with words that bring calm into the environment.

You likely find yourself constantly changing from one condition to the next, your choices changing with the circumstance. Our spiritual practice can open the gate to the ninth level of discernment where our life tendency is one of harmony with the true law. Nice place to go, tough place to stay. The way to get there, and the way it shows, is through our thoughts words and actions.

WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

One of the outstanding religious and public leaders in American history was Jonathan Edwards. While it is true that he delivered the frequently cited sermon called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” he was much more than a fiery voice spouting evangelistic fear. He was also the calm intellectual, who examined the behaviors of animals and who tracked the phenomenal characteristics of believers who experienced religious renewal. His career included time as a pastor and time as president of Princeton University.

In Edwards’ day, human beings were understood to have two defining forces at work within them — the understanding and the will. The first was an intellectual capacity to absorb and to grasp; in other words, it was the work of the brain. The second was a moral capacity to choose and to act; in other words, it was the outcome in options and actions of what was understood.

Human existence was not merely the result of mechanical processes robotically carrying out understanding. Rather, human existence was the result of what a person willed to do with the knowledge that one acquired.

To be human is to make choices, to articulate the reasons for those choices, to persuade others about the merits of those choices, and to engage in a critical assessment of one’s own or others’ choices.

Human life is not the result of a machine-like brain. Human life is a process of moral insights, judgments, and choices. Relying on the brain alone can never unlock the secrets of what it means to be human or what it means to be a child of God.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism and Speaker on interfaith and diversity matters

When our universe came in to existence, two major components were its outcome; matter and life. Matter, comprising the sun, planets, moon, and everything else in the universe was programmed to maintain its own equilibrium, and doing precisely what they were scheduled to do. As humans, we were not set on a fixed program, but are equipped with a brain to freely guide us to find our own dynamic balance.

When we go off the balance, we consciously or instinctively make attempts to regain that elusive balance, failure to do so will result in a variety of pleasant and unpleasant actions that we may enjoy and or painfully endure. For guidance, we reach out to the stocked shelf and grab elements of religion like forgiveness, repentance, prayers, meditation and a variety of prescriptions to reboot our system.

Are we relying too much on the science of the brain to explain human behaviors?

Not at all, we are still at a nascent stage of exploring all that our brain does reflexively by the deficiency or excess of the chemicals. The more we identify the elements the greater chances we have of mitigating the nature of our being. Thanks to the insights unearthed in the interview with Dr. Sandra Bond Chapman. It gives a lot of hope.

However, a greater part of our behavior is nurtured by the social aspect of the environment, including what transpires in the developmental stage of our lives and as a member of the society at large. The founding fathers of human behavior like Freud, Jung and others were successful in identifying the behavioral issues stemming from nurture.

And now the social scientists have a greater role to play in completing the transaction of human behavior to separate the genuine conflicts from imagined ones to keep society equilibrium. The new conflicts are a product of people of different faiths, cultures and races, working, eating, playing, marrying, and doing things together. Even with minimal interactions we have at this time, it is generating conflicts between those who believe their path alone brings salvation and those who believe in other avenues.

Pluralism is the upcoming social supplement for salvation. If we can learn to respect the otherness of others and accept the God-given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge for cohesive and functional societies.

The human brain is like a prism. Light does not come from a prism but light can be transmitted and put through a prism. The body itself, including the brain, is simply a machine for the soul. Once the soul leaves the body, the body is of little worth. It is through the body that soul expresses itself in this material world.

There is much phenomena unexplainable by the modern mechanistic idea of consciousness, one is inspiration. For example the zeta function discovery by German mathematician Bernard Riehmann. Right before dying he wrote a note describing several properties of this function. He did not indicate the proof of these properties and it took many years later for mathematicians to prove all but one of them. The last one has been studied with great difficulty over the past 100 years.

One mathematician, Jacques Hadamard, in this regards said, “All these complements could be brought to Riemann’s publication only by the help of facts which were completely unknown in his time; and, for one of the properties enunciated by him, it is hardly conceivable how he can have found it without using some of these general principles, no mention of which is made in his paper.”

Mechanistic science fails to present theoretical models which cannot account for this phenomena of inspiration. For this reason others it is easy to understand that the self transcends the brain. Based on the desires and resultant actions (karma), the soul is granted a particular body. Due to the influence of ignorance, the soul misidentifies the body as the self. Thus in such ignorance, the self becomes conditioned by the body that it inhabits.

Top Picks

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

ArchivesAbout this blog

About this Blog

The Texas Faith blog is a discussion among formal and informal religious leaders whose faith traditions express a belief in a transcendent power – or the possibility of one. While all readers are invited to participate in this blog, by responding in the comments section, discussion leaders are those whose religion involves belief in a divine higher power or those who may not believe in a transcendent power but leave room for the possibility of one. Within this framework, moderators William McKenzie and Wayne Slater seek to bring a diversity of thinkers onto the Texas Faith panels.